Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Is Atheism Irrational? NYTimes Opinion Piece (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Klimtology
- Start date
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
OK, but whatever he is currently revealing to us is not worthy of inclusion in the bible? So, we're stuck with this static text that never changes?
Jayrok
Footballguy
There are places in the bible that warn to not add or take away from the word of God (such as Proverbs 30:5-6, Deut 12:32, Revelation 22:18-19).
Rev 22:18-19 -- I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
It seems likely that this sort of thing was taking place if the author of Revelation (or its redactor) felt compelled to include such a warning to not add or take away from the word.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Ok, what about the ecumenical councils deciding which books to include or exclude? I guess that doesn't violate the above rules?
Also, why would God prohibit any future edits, yet still keep communicating to us?
Sorry, not trying to be a pain the ###, I'm just curious how these things are reconciled by believers. This is the sort of stuff that makes no sense to me.
Jayrok
Footballguy
History is recorded by the victors. The end product/collection of books would likely have looked different had the gnostics or the marcionites, for instance, won out at the end. As we have it, the roman catholic church had the last say. Although, I believe the Pauline epistles show shades, even after RCC redaction, of thoughts and ideas shared by Marcion who was excommunicated from the church in the second century for his heretical beliefs. The Pauline letters were the chief authoritative writings in his churches. I think he may have actually influenced some of those writings himself.
cstu
Footballguy
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Got it, #2 above makes sense. I would say it fits with the notion that "man created god", not the reverse. I'm interested in how those who believe #1 would explain this?
Jayrod
Footballguy
One thing you seem to stumble on, and almost all who reject God, is how you think God should work vs. how He actually works. God's will is not always done. Jesus prayed that the Father's will would be done on earth as it is in heaven. Peter tells us that God's wants none to perish, but all to come to repentance. Why the prayer by Jesus? Why don't all come to repentance? Clearly God allows for things to occur on earth outside of his desires.
So it should come at no surprise that even though Jesus prayed for unity, Christians aren't always unified.
So how that is some kind of indictment on the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit and therefore a reason to reject the divine inspiration of scripture seems odd.
Jayrod
Footballguy
Correct.
While we aren't adding anymore books specifically to the Bible, there are countless numbers of Christian books written that are divinely inspired. There are stories recorded of believers that would basically just be an extension of the book of Acts. Truth be told, the whole thing got too big to record into one book. The history of the Bible was really a very narrowly focused history after Genesis on a small very specific group of people. Once the "story" got opened up to the world beyond the people of Israel, it is no longer feasible to continue it as a single narrative.
God has spoken more in the last 2000 years than he did before. The only truly "silent" period was the several hundred years leading up to Christ.
Jayrod
Footballguy
I think the idea is to not edit the existing Bible itself from that which has been recorded, and most notably that which is written in Revelation. I have never really taken them to mean that there are no more writings that could ever be considered scripture. That is a more dogmatic approach to the Bible and seems to take these verses and run with them beyond their intended meanings.
Jayrod
Footballguy
Explain the way the Bible came to be as is?
One thing many believers, like myself, believe is that God did direct the assembly of what we have today as the Bible. That what we have today is as God desired it.
While I did say God's will isn't ALWAYS done on earth, it is done quite often. I don't believe God would allow the message of scripture to be compromised for any real period of time without getting someone to fix it. In other words, if they made a mistake 1200 years ago, it would have been corrected by now by a group of believers somewhere. Since God hasn't raised up such a group for such a correction, we (I) make the assumption that it is as God desires and is sufficient for what he has for us at this time. I don't believe we will have all of the answers until we pass from this life, but we have all we need to get through the now.
"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." I Cor 13:9-12
Jayrok
Footballguy
Or maybe Jesus chose not to answer his own prayer after he saw what dingleberries those sects were.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Wow. Really? I've not heard of this before. Can you point me to some examples? Also, who decides which books are divinely inspired and which ones are not? And, why do people continue to quote the bible if there are more modern sources for god's word? For example, wouldn't it be nice to get his latest thinking on gay marriage? I always thought the reason Christians are so against it is because they were stuck in 2,000 year old morality.
Jayrod
Footballguy
He specifically asked about those who believe #1
Jayrok
Footballguy
my bad.. sorry.
Jayrod
Footballguy
Some of CS Lewis' work, notably Mere Christianity is a universally accepted book by most all believers. Pilgrim's Progress by John Runyan and My Utmost For His Highest by Oswald Chambers are both fantastic and universally accepted as theologically sound and inspirational. No one calls them "scripture" nor have they been dissected like scripture has, but they have held up for decades. I'm sure there are early works of which I am not as familiar, but to say that God hasn't been speaking to us through writings since the end of the New Testament would be incorrect.CowboysFromHell said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
God has apparently raised up many groups who've corrected his teachings. In fact, what you've described is kinda exactly how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was started. Muhammad was visited by the angel Gabriel and reportedly he inspired the Quran. And ditto for a number of other religions, Protestant Reformation, etc.Jayrod said:
There have been plenty of groups that have "made corrections" to the word of God. You just don't recognize them as being correct. But who are we to know which version is correct?
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
Also important to remember that Rael was abducted by aliens and ate meals with Jesus, Buddha, and other past religious figures in 1975. Raelism considers Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Joseph Smith, John the Baptist, and a number of Biblical prophets to be prophets of the religion.
The Commish
Footballguy
I think the confusion is in your labeling them "divinely inspired". That would suggest that those books were penned, by God, through those folks. I've never heard anyone ever assert that.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I think it's probably just a terminology thing. To your question about the Bible not continuing to grow, I think it goes back to what one thinks the Bible should represent. The Bible itself has two parts. The Old Testament illustrates what the initial covenant was between God and his people and how that would eventually change. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the prophecy made in the OT and what that means to Christians going forward. The lessons are timeless so I'm not sure why one would expect it to keep growing. It's what's expected of us as followers of Christ. Those expectations don't change, so no need to update anything.That's exactly what I was going to ask for clarification on.
To Jayrod's point, some of the "events" you'd like to see added to the Bible are illustrated through books by individuals recounting many individual experiences they believe were God inspired. So in that sense, what you're looking for exists, just not in Biblical form. However, if you reject the Bible and it's teachings, then I doubt these types of accounts will satisfy your standard.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Ok, thanks. Good clarification and this all makes sense to me. I guess where I was going was how to reconcile what Jayrod was saying with a literal interpretation of the bible. Semantics aside, and not trying to pin "literal interpretation" on Jayrod. But, for those that do believe in a literal or strict interpretation, does that pigeon-hole you into maintaining some beliefs that are 2,000 years old and maybe outdated? I use homosexuality and gay marriage as a good example of something that, 2,000 years ago, was not even on the radar screen of the biblical writers. Does this "force" some Christians into discriminating against LGBT folks because the "bible says so"? It sure seems like the only people still complaining about gay marriage are the ultra-right wing Christians, and it sure seems like the only reason they have a beef with it is because of their religious beliefs. How can we move past this if the religious can't re-interpret or otherwise update their interpretation of the ancient text?I think it's probably just a terminology thing. To your question about the Bible not continuing to grow, I think it goes back to what one thinks the Bible should represent. The Bible itself has two parts. The Old Testament illustrates what the initial covenant was between God and his people and how that would eventually change. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the prophecy made in the OT and what that means to Christians going forward. The lessons are timeless so I'm not sure why one would expect it to keep growing. It's what's expected of us as followers of Christ. Those expectations don't change, so no need to update anything.That's exactly what I was going to ask for clarification on.
To Jayrod's point, some of the "events" you'd like to see added to the Bible are illustrated through books by individuals recounting many individual experiences they believe were God inspired. So in that sense, what you're looking for exists, just not in Biblical form. However, if you reject the Bible and it's teachings, then I doubt these types of accounts will satisfy your standard.
Jayrod
Footballguy
Not to dive into a tangent, but homosexuality was around during Biblical writing times and is addressed in both the Old and New Testaments.Ok, thanks. Good clarification and this all makes sense to me. I guess where I was going was how to reconcile what Jayrod was saying with a literal interpretation of the bible. Semantics aside, and not trying to pin "literal interpretation" on Jayrod. But, for those that do believe in a literal or strict interpretation, does that pigeon-hole you into maintaining some beliefs that are 2,000 years old and maybe outdated? I use homosexuality and gay marriage as a good example of something that, 2,000 years ago, was not even on the radar screen of the biblical writers. Does this "force" some Christians into discriminating against LGBT folks because the "bible says so"? It sure seems like the only people still complaining about gay marriage are the ultra-right wing Christians, and it sure seems like the only reason they have a beef with it is because of their religious beliefs. How can we move past this if the religious can't re-interpret or otherwise update their interpretation of the ancient text?I think it's probably just a terminology thing. To your question about the Bible not continuing to grow, I think it goes back to what one thinks the Bible should represent. The Bible itself has two parts. The Old Testament illustrates what the initial covenant was between God and his people and how that would eventually change. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the prophecy made in the OT and what that means to Christians going forward. The lessons are timeless so I'm not sure why one would expect it to keep growing. It's what's expected of us as followers of Christ. Those expectations don't change, so no need to update anything.That's exactly what I was going to ask for clarification on.
To Jayrod's point, some of the "events" you'd like to see added to the Bible are illustrated through books by individuals recounting many individual experiences they believe were God inspired. So in that sense, what you're looking for exists, just not in Biblical form. However, if you reject the Bible and it's teachings, then I doubt these types of accounts will satisfy your standard.
Jayrod
Footballguy
I'm guessing what I understand "divinely inspired" to mean is very different from you guys. I've never taken it to mean that every word was spoken audibly from God to the authors. But rather they are writing about that which God has laid on their hearts. They feel it, know it, using their voice and writing style, but it is God's message coming through them. Like a spokesperson or ambassador, not like a typewriter or keyboard. The authors are still people, but are directed and show what to say.
That said, I absolutely I think God was involved in CS Lewis writing Mere Christianity similarly to His involvement in Paul writing the epistles. The same Holy Spirit is working in both men as they write to speak what God reveals to them. It is the same thing that thousands of pastors do every week with their sermons. The word of God is available to all men who are filled with Holy Spirit and blessed by God to do his will. There isn't some special line that was drawn between Bible writers and the communicators of today. They just happened to be used in a very key initial point of the history of the church and it was given a more lasting place in the Bible. But that doesn't mean God was done teaching his people.
The Commish
Footballguy
Not in my opinion. They do that because of some issue they themselves have and use the Bible to justify it. I've never heard an individual say, "man, I'd really like to love this person, but their sin (homosexuality for example) gets in the way of that, so I can't". The Bible doesn't tell us to do these things to people. The Bible tells us to love all people regardless of what sins they are carrying around.Ok, thanks. Good clarification and this all makes sense to me. I guess where I was going was how to reconcile what Jayrod was saying with a literal interpretation of the bible. Semantics aside, and not trying to pin "literal interpretation" on Jayrod. But, for those that do believe in a literal or strict interpretation, does that pigeon-hole you into maintaining some beliefs that are 2,000 years old and maybe outdated? I use homosexuality and gay marriage as a good example of something that, 2,000 years ago, was not even on the radar screen of the biblical writers. Does this "force" some Christians into discriminating against LGBT folks because the "bible says so"? It sure seems like the only people still complaining about gay marriage are the ultra-right wing Christians, and it sure seems like the only reason they have a beef with it is because of their religious beliefs. How can we move past this if the religious can't re-interpret or otherwise update their interpretation of the ancient text?I think it's probably just a terminology thing. To your question about the Bible not continuing to grow, I think it goes back to what one thinks the Bible should represent. The Bible itself has two parts. The Old Testament illustrates what the initial covenant was between God and his people and how that would eventually change. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the prophecy made in the OT and what that means to Christians going forward. The lessons are timeless so I'm not sure why one would expect it to keep growing. It's what's expected of us as followers of Christ. Those expectations don't change, so no need to update anything.That's exactly what I was going to ask for clarification on.
To Jayrod's point, some of the "events" you'd like to see added to the Bible are illustrated through books by individuals recounting many individual experiences they believe were God inspired. So in that sense, what you're looking for exists, just not in Biblical form. However, if you reject the Bible and it's teachings, then I doubt these types of accounts will satisfy your standard.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
OK, Jayrod, I get what you're saying. But, doesn't this sort of blur the lines on the two viewpoints that Jayrok originally put out there?
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
Serious question though, how do you discern which religious texts have God's involvement or non-involvement? Because there are surely plenty of people who purport to have been divinely inspired or however you'd like to put it - including people who've used their divine inspiration to start entire offshoot religious movements. I realize that it all comes down to a personal faith, but how can you (or any believer) come to the conclusion that your religion is the correct one and that Mormonism or Islam isn't? Nothing against those two different groups, just bringing them up because I'd mentioned them upthread. Or do you believe that God did inspire those same people and they've misread the message? But if that's the case, how can you be sure that your sect hasn't misread the message?
This is kinda making my brain hurt.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
And, once again, I'll point out that we are discussing if religion is rational or not in the "Is Atheism Irrational" thread.
joffer
Footballguy
http://harddawn.com/are-militant-atheists-using-chemtrails-to-poison-the-angels-in-heaven/
fess up...who's behind this?
fess up...who's behind this?
matuski
Footballguy
Jayrod
Footballguy
How do you even find this stuff?
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer
Footballguy
its in the weekly militant-atheism-secret-plot-to-cause-the-downfall-of-society newsletter
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
popsecret
Footballguy
sad this thread turned into just mocking religious people.
I can play that game too
fess up... which one of you guys is this person? http://37.media.tumblr.com/36437b6e513d4f72f13d9026b809e6fb/tumblr_n528hz4ydq1rfwfq9o1_1280.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/TV4SGiu.png
(HULK)
(Smash)
Amazing that god and his angels are so easily defeated.
(HULK)
(Smash)
Im much more attractive than this guy, but I'm guilty of thinking similarly in the past. Part of it is that I do have a very high IQ. But even so, over time, I've realized I don't know so much more than I do know. So I stopped being such an arrogant toolbag. You'd think a mirror might cure this fellow of his arrogance IMO
popsecret
Footballguy
Right, both sides can do it but it is childish and pointless. Lets get the thread back on track and enough LOLWHATANIDIOTOTHERSIDEIS posts
cstu
Footballguy
The reason there isn't more of a difference is because there are a lot of intelligent people who can't (or don't want to) reject the faith they were taught as children.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gandalf the Grey
Footballguy
popsecret
Footballguy
from your link
" Firstly it only takes into account analytical intelligence, disregarding creative and emotional intelligence. Moreover, it could be argued the study is not representative, as over 87 per cent of the participants involved in the various studies were from the US, the UK and Canada.
Also, the predominant religion is the study is Protestantism, while other beliefs are not investigated."
popsecret
Footballguy
Hey look, I can do what CTSU does too. Hey CTSU/joffer, can we stop being childish now? Thank you
Atheists are more likely to be criminals
http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2012/6/belief-hell-according-international-data-associated-reduced-crime
Atheists are more likely to be stressed
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm
Atheists have inferior health
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/uom-rss102611.php
Atheists are more likely to be depressed
http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/religion-happiness-social-bonds.htm
Atheists are more likely to be criminals
http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2012/6/belief-hell-according-international-data-associated-reduced-crime
Atheists are more likely to be stressed
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm
Atheists have inferior health
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/uom-rss102611.php
Atheists are more likely to be depressed
http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/religion-happiness-social-bonds.htm
popsecret
Footballguy
That study is intellectually misleading as it doesn't mention the fact atheists represent a lower percentage of Americans by a substantial amount, so whether they are more likely to be criminals or not there will always be less of them in prison.
Also that study fails to consider the fact that people find God in prison as a way of surviving it, so they could have been an atheist before going into prison.
Last edited by a moderator:
The link says nothing at all resembling your characterization of it. It doesn't say anything about atheists whatsoever. It says that theists whose beliefs emphasize hell are less likely to commit crimes than theists whose beliefs don't emphasize hell (a result that has been confirmed elsewhere).
The claim that atheists are more likely to be criminals is contrary to the available evidence. Murder rates are lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations. Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries. The same is true within America, where the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the most religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, while the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious, such as Vermont and Oregon. Also, atheists are very under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%).
As far as I know, your other three claims are true.
Last edited by a moderator:
